France Asserts Women's Right to Wear Clothes

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your authoritarian fascist leanings are showing talking about "institutions of the beach". Going to the beach was never about "accepting vulnerability together" traditionally.

Also, learn your pagan rituals. Moloch worship (bohemian grove) and the like are many millennia old, and has nothing to do with western values in the fucking slightest.

A response to the second part of this post would be like 5 pages long. That's a whole nother meta discussion.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Like i said, one is a natural discomfort from modesty, the other is nothing less than an authoritarian stance on apparel.

I want to make sure that what you are saying is, "modesty with regard to nakedness is a natural trait universally expressed by humans and is therefore good, while discomfort around burka wearers is unnatural and not universal and therefore bad." Is that right?

[R Flair]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I want to make sure that what you are saying is, "modesty with regard to nakedness is a natural trait universally expressed by humans and is therefore good, while discomfort around burka wearers is unnatural and not universal and therefore bad." Is that right?

Correct and in before you cite some tribe from africa as evidence against the former.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by R Flair [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Correct and in before you cite some tribe from africa as evidence against the former.

^^

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

natty argument is weak. I'd rather make the moral character of public spaces argument (cant be naked in public legally, right?). Keep your fetish gear to private functions and maybe permitted/planned events, not at places where people go to gather with a reasonable expectation of civility and minimal lasciviousness. This goes for furries and leather daddies as well as sex cultists.

And we can settle on that.

*Gavel drops*

/thread

[maskedmelon]

Aversion to aberration is natural and that is what anti burka-ini people experience. It's the same reason people in clothes wearing societies might be uncomfortable around naked people.

People are always going to be uncomfortable about something. If you are going to advocate anti-authoritarian / libertarian ethic, then there should be no restriction and any restriction is authoritarian whether rooted in "natural discomfort" or not. That doesn't make the prohibition any more or less reasonable though^^

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting thing here is that there are already prohibitions on clothing. Facial coverings as already mentioned are one example, but there are also restrictions on minimal clothing, which are again generally more restrictive on women than men. Why is it 'moral' to tell women what they must wear, while deplorable to tell women what they cannot wear?

Some folks here are overthinking these issues. These are the mores of the successful culture in that area. Some of them codified as laws. Some of them enforced via community (e.g. shaming overly sexual behaviors in public that harm family/societal structures, outrage at overt refusal to assimilate, revulsion to female treatment in Islam represented by their clothing, etc).

Regarding more restrictive clothing restrictions for women, there are differences between genders. They aren't equal. The dynamics between the genders is not symmetric, so it's unreasonable to assume expectations should necessarily be equivalent for both genders.

Regarding the burkinis, bring incompatible cultures together, and those cultures clash. When a people with an incompatible culture enter proximity of another culture and refuse to assimilate, don't be surprised when there is war. Diversity + proximity = war

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are going to advocate anti-authoritarian / libertarian ethic, then there should be no restriction and any restriction is authoritarian whether rooted in "natural discomfort" or not.

Libertarianism isn't anti-restriction. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consequences. On the contrary, libertarianism is very much about restriction e.g. physical removal off my property if I dislike you.

[entruil]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People are always going to be uncomfortable about something. If you are going to advocate anti-authoritarian / libertarian ethic, then there should be no restriction and any restriction is authoritarian whether rooted in "natural discomfort" or not. That doesn't make the prohibition any more or less reasonable though^^

I read about an example but cant find ref atm... it was "Feinstein's Bus" iirc... bunch of smells and sights and sounds that might be annoying, but u can always get off the bus and catch the next one...


yea fash the "dam kids, get off my lawn" adds a nice twist.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Libertarianism isn't anti-restriction. Libertarianism is very much about restriction e.g. physical removal off my property if I dislike you.

Let's start with why your example is libertarian and then see if we can develop that into restrictions in clothing ^^